“Chrissy Matthews — You Ignorant Slut!”

Chris Matthews, who earned his impartial bonafides as an acolyte of anti-Vietnam War activist Eugene McCarthy, as a speech writer for President Jimmy Carter and as an aid to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, has attacked Conservatives as “anti-science” claiming, for all intents and purposes, that conservatives are ignorant hicks clinging to their guns and bibles.

To which, I can only say, “Chrissy, you ignorant slut!”

May I beg to differ with the king of tingly legs — the bard of partisan attack.

He attacked conservatives on three fronts: evolution, stem cell research, and global warming. His smug attack left no doubt that he felt himself on firm ground — after all, there is a consensus on all three subjects — a consensus reached by shouting down and ignoring any evidence that would throw into question the lack of evidence to support the theories.

Conservatives are not anti-science — we are anti pseudo-science! Whereas the internal combustion engine would have seemed as magic to a savage of the first century BC, so does the pseudo-science of global warming seem as magic to the savages of today. Except today, those ignorant savages are the ones in power, making decisions that affect the lives of every human on this planet. It is the Chris Matthews of this world, in their unquestioning awe and wonder of government intervention, that we need fear — not conservatives.

In his recent attack on Rep Mike Pence specifically and conservatives in general, Chrissy Matthews displayed his own ignorance of science — and the awe with which he holds pseudo-science.

“Do you believe in evolution!” he demanded of Pence, in the manner of a prosecuting attorney questioning a hostile witness. Witlessly, Matthews equated the broad term “evolution” with science. My question for Matthews, should the subject ever come up again, would be, “What do you mean by ‘evolution,’ Chrissy?”

You see, there is a reason that it is called the “Theory of Evolution” Chrissy. The entire “theory” on which this pseudo-science is built is the work of Charles Darwin, a 19th century British naturalist. His book, “The Origin of Species” forms the basis of Evolutionary Theory as taught in schools today.

But that is the condensed version of his tome — that is used to prove this pseudo-science masquerading as science. The entire name of that book is “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” A better title for today’s teachings would be ‘Natural Selection” instead of “Evolution.”

Because, while Darwin’s work does a wonderful job of showing how certain species’ survival is dependent upon natural selection, the conclusion drawn from that theory, that somehow mankind emerged from a primordial goo into homo erectus and eventually modern man is entirely without evidence. Evolutionist point at fossil evidence that show all sorts of semi-humanoid creatures — but the missing link still remains missing.

When Chrissy makes the outlandish claim that many Christians believe that fossil evidence has been planted by liberals to promote evolution — thereby discrediting any Christian thought on the pseudo-science claiming to be science — one can only ask the question, “Huh?”

Unless, of course, Chrissy was talking about the apparent missing link found near the English village of Piltdown in 1912. For more than five decades that discovery was held up as proof of the theory of the descent of man from the great apes, but was proven to be a hoax in the mid-1950s.

Now at the micro-evolutionary level — the actual subject of that Darwin book — survival of the fittest actually does have impact on species. The classic example, the peppered moth of industrialized England, demonstrated that as soot and other industrial pollutants darkened the air, the darker spotted moths seemed to better survive the bird population — then as air pollution came under control, the lighter colored moths appeared to return.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Chrissy’s second attack on conservatives was Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Of course, he didn’t call it that. In the manner so common of the left, he simply called conservatives anti-stem cell research. In this blurring of science and pseudo-science so common on the left, the issue is boiled down to religious bigots attempting to prevent Christopher Reeves from ever walking again. The left, in blurring Embryonic Stem Cell Research with Adult and Cord Blood Stem Cell Research is engaged in offering hype instead of hope to the American people.

Science, not pseudo-science promises great hope for research into life-saving adult stem cell cures. Embryonic stem cell research, however, while offering a wonderful political hammer with which the left beats the right, has proven itself to be nothing but a dead end.

Bone marrow transplants, the implanting of adult stem cells from one person to another, have become the staple in fighting Leukemia. I know of nobody on the right with religious or any other convictions against the use of adult stem cells and cord blood cells in the interest of science. But it is the left, for some reason known only to themselves, who seem bent upon the destruction of life as a means to advance science. Is Dr Mengele so removed from memory as all that?

Global warming

If pseudo-science needed a poster child, Al Gore and Anthropogenic Global Warming, would perfectly fit the bill. What minute evidence Evolution and Embryonic Stem Cell Research might be able to muster, AGW is the scientific equivalent of the red-headed step child.

In the AGW debate, — which is not allowed, by the way, in the name of scientific consensus — are we to accept the offerings of the handful of political hacks at the IPCC who put together the 40 page “analysis” of climate change, or the thousands scientists who contributed the actual research. many of whom refute the political conclusions drawn? Don’t take my word for it:

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

When questioned about the questionable conclusions drawn, or the absolutely destructive cap-and-trade legislation proposed to ‘combat’ it, the answer from the left is “the debate is over — we have scientific consensus.”

I would venture to say, Chrissy, that your knowledge and understanding of AGW is on a par with your knowledge and understanding of embryonic stem cell research and the theory of evolution. Which is to say, you don’t understand pseudo-science, but it is that lack of understanding that convinces you that it must be correct.

Chrissy, that tingly feeling up your leg? It is your brain falling asleep — I suggest you stand up for a while!